Jump to content

3 DV's = 3 lawsuits = 3 judgements


DebbieCares
 Share

Recommended Posts

You've raised an interesting topic for discussion! The purpose of DV is to make sure a collection agency or bad debt buyer can prove the debtor has incurred the debt, that the amount claimed is reasonable and the debt is legally owed to them and legally recoverable. Most original creditors can successfully validate and are prepared to do so now that so many debtors are catching on to the FDCPA and are bombarding creditors with DV requests. The most notorious validators thus far seem to be CitiBank, Discover Bank, Capital One and HSBC. All they need is enough evidence to convince a judge whatever that evidence consists of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a prose, and for one happen to have some type of dissentation in understanding, like real property any type of these alleged credit card account within the terms of it ,would it must have transferring rights?

So my question stands and asks the precepting that if an alleged debtor and creditor executes an agrement , shouldn`t the agrement must warn the debtor that if default this account will be transferred to third parties such as collection accounts and any type of different investor who tehn legally incur such accounts? :evil:

If the alleged creditor transfers this allged debtors account hence the agrement does not indicate , such transferring terms, would this be violation of Federal truth in lending and Federal truth in billing act? :twisted:

Suffice to say that , would the alleged debtor then incur rigfhts to sue the alleged creditor for violating FTLA and FTBA and Gramm Leach Bliley Act and Fourth Amendement for transferring his priviliged personal information to third parties? 8)

Please answer,

Very truly yours,

pro se lItigant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand in the middle on this. I think DV is useful. There are lots of lazy CAs out there, ones that will fold the tent and stop collecting rather than validate. With those you buy time. And when used with the 1-2 punch, you can get nasties deleted from your CR. This is useful for you in the short term, as if affects your credit score. But , again, it does not dissolve the underlying debt.

The real problem is the attitude that every attempt to collect is fraught with multiple FDCPA violations and that you can sue your way out by claiming the CA violated the law. If the purpose of your DV is to counterpunch, you may very well be surprised when the that punch is parried. The riposte is expensive.

So you must ask yourself what you want accomplished versus the risk of provoking a suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is a modified version of the DV on the sample page.

please comment on it.

is it asking for a lawsuit? seems it may be with all the legal talk and case law.

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me. Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (B) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.

I am requesting proof that I am indeed the party you are asking to pay this debt, and there is some contractual obligation, which is binding on me to pay this debt. I request that you stop contacting me on the telephone and restrict your contact with me to writing, and only when you can provide adequate validation of this alleged debt. To refresh your memory on what constitutes legal validation, I am giving a list of the required documentation:

· Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509 and

· Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.

· How did you calculate the amount you are requesting?

· Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company. (Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn. Oct. 29, 2002).

· Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f) in this alleged matter.

· What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

· What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

· Send me copies of any and all original credit/loan application, promissory note or debt instrument and/or canceled checks “certifying” this alleged debt or obligation.

I'm sure you know, under FDCPA Section 809 (B), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated. You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand in the middle on this. I think DV is useful. There are lots of lazy CAs out there, ones that will fold the tent and stop collecting rather than validate. With those you buy time. And when used with the 1-2 punch, you can get nasties deleted from your CR. This is useful for you in the short term, as if affects your credit score. But , again, it does not dissolve the underlying debt.

The real problem is the attitude that every attempt to collect is fraught with multiple FDCPA violations and that you can sue your way out by claiming the CA violated the law. If the purpose of your DV is to counterpunch, you may very well be surprised when the that punch is parried. The riposte is expensive.

So you must ask yourself what you want accomplished versus the risk of provoking a suit.

I came to this website and saw DV was the "ultimate weapon" against CA's.

Turns out it was the "ultimate weapon" against my credit reports.

Nothing like the sheriff deputy coming to your house in front of the neighbors and handing me 3 summons 3 different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO always DV 3rd Parties regardless of SOL and always counter offer to OC's if possible. I'm living proof that DV's work all the way if the DV is worded properly. Remember, 3rd parties need to produce Certified Proof of Validation, not just a simple copy of something with no Certification from the Origianl Creditor. 3rd Parties can make up anything and then copy it and make you believe it's the real McCoy. Demand Certification from a Notary that it is actually a true copy of the original, anything less than that is hearsay BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can use DV to exercise your federal rights.

And mostly because any Joe Schmoe can say that you owe them money. DV gives you the ability to counter such claims by requiring the collectors to show that they have solid proof.

However, DV is not a magic button that you can push to make all your debts disappear.

There may be times in which you may have a legitimate debt but the collector has absolutely no proof whatsoever other than a computer printout. Then that is just tough luck on the collector because if they were following the rules and obeyed the law, then they could have legitimately pursued this debt. It’s their fault for being careless.

But if a collector has everything, like copy of signed contract, etc., then I don’t see why you would throw a big fit just because someone followed the rules and obeyed the law. You have a legitimate debt and the collectors can prove it. And if that is the case, then you got to pay it.

There are plenty of ways to get it removed from your credit report but you still have a legal obligation to pay it. It is not the collector’s fault that they could prove that you actually owe the debt (which is totally different from it appearing on your credit report).

DV is not the ultimate weapon to make your legal debts disappear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter is fine. But you fail to do what the DV process is meant to do.

The very first line should be:

I received your letter of xx/xx/xxxxx. I DISPUTE this debt and deny owing your client.

If you can't say that, don't bother with the rest. DV does not require the CA to give you legally competent proof, just something that links you to the debt. All that other stuff is fine for discovery when you are defending the suit. Here, without a fuindamental dispute, it looks like you are desparately seeking a technicality to trip the CA up on. Somethimes it works and the CA goes away, but it does not absolve you of the underlying debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attorney is correct. You should Dispute and Deny the debt. It isn't necessary to send a wordy request demanding signatures, telling them not to phone, citing "who versus who" and all the other stuff they aren't compelled by law to comply with. Most OC's receiving that kind of request will likely pull a credit report to determine how to disposition the matter then take some sort of action. If the tables were turned and you were the creditor, would you take the time to answer all of those questions and then fire off a reply only to risk hanging yourself? Probably not and you would likely drop it into the lap of a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat confused here on the consumer being required to per say deny owing the debt in a DV letter.----the DV letter I used left the deny question somewhat open.----to paraphraise in brief the opening sentences. ---this is not a refusal to pay but a notice your claim is disputed and debt validation is requested.

1. I have always regarded a DV letter as a right granted under law to the consumer. What good is a right if you don't use it?

2. An absolute minimum I want to see is the collector's proof that they own the debt. Its possible I may owe the debt but why should I pay this jerk if someone else owns the debt?

3. I have always regarded a DV request as a requirement that the collector lay at least some of their cards on the table---show me what you have. Meanwhile I will insert a clause saying its inconvient for me to take telephone calls so I won't be browbeaten into showing what I have in the way of cards. I then also insert my own mini-miranda and let the creditor know I will respond by mail.

4. The DV request will send almost all junk debt buyers packing in search of easier victims.------those that do respond with something credable will then have to be dealt with.----but the junk debt buyer may try to slip some garbage by and then one more request for real debt validation will finally send them packing.

5. The debt validation letter is just a first step in a process and never should be regarded as something that will make ALL creditors go away.

But as a first line of defense it buys time and chases some away. I would recommend to all that they DV and then go from there rather than simply proceed to cut the best possible deal without the DV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least DV buys some time as most collection agencies collect off of computer databases. When they receive a DV request they either inform the OC or return the account to the OC for further action. The OC then responds with the account agreement and copies of the original statement history and if/when the case goes to court the OC provides a representative to attest to having personal knowledge of the debt, its authenticity and identity of the debtor. Generally this is considered by courts to be very good validation for a summary judgment. Bad debt buyers are doing the same thing with good results. UNIFUND wins lots of cases in court on this basis. Sure it is hearsay, however when they acquire portfolios they want the proof that goes along with it. Judges rule in civil cases on preponderance of evidence and not on reasonable doubt as in criminal matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they receive a DV request they either inform the OC or return the account to the OC for further action.

It depends a lot on the collector...

The smaller ones don't care about debt validation because they use strong arm tactics... They lie, intimidate, harass, and threaten...

One friend of mine uses profanity and threats of violence when he does collections and his employer loves it... As a result, they don't give a rat's [EXPLETIVE DELETED] about DV...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's always a good idea to DV. It is my right as a consumer to know most importantly: a) if they have any records that actually belong to me and B) how they arrived at the amount they say I owe.

True, most CAs cannot prove either of these points. Most OCs can't either. I think it depends on how strong your DV letter is. If it is obvious you have done your homework most often a CA will back off completely.

I recently DV'd 2 CAs: one shows a balance of $116, one shows $250. I showed them both how they could easily end up paying me $4,000 in violations just to collect these measly amounts. They have so far deleted from 2 of the 3 bureaus. BUT I studied this board and the laws endlessly and read Kristy's book at least twice before I attempted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debbie> In this modern world, your key stroke can act as your signature. You'd be surprised at the detail a pc can spit out.

But beyond that, you get a card, you use it, the statements come to you and you pay it, or you don't send it back. Usage of the card will take you out of the statute of frauds.

In most DV letters and the one you helped me with it asks for signatures, so I just wondered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.